The Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 is the fifth in the company's industry-changing video and stills 'hybrid' lineup. With its 20MP Four Thirds sensor and deep video-centric feature set, it looks likely to pick up where the GH4 left off as a favorite of indie filmmakers and photographers whose interests venture into the realm of motion picture work.

The GH5's feature set moves on suitably far from its predecessor that the company says the GH4 will remain in its lineup as a lower-cost option for users who don't need the additional capability that the GH5 brings.

For many users, the addition of in-body stabilization and 4K video without cropping might be enough to make the camera a worthwhile upgrade, but Panasonic has revised and improved almost every aspect of the camera's behavior and performance.

Key Features

20MP Four Thirds sensor (no OLPF)

5-axis in-body image stabilization system with 'Dual IS 2' support

All 4K footage taken using full width of sensor (oversampled from 5.1K footage)

Two pre-announced firmware updates

It's worth noting that Panasonic already has two firmware updates planned for the camera, one expected around April, which will bring 10-bit 4:2:2 1080p capture, and a second at some point during the summer.

The summer firmware update promises some very big improvements, including DCI/UHD 4K 4:2:2 10-bit recording at 400Mbps, and 1080/60p 4:2:2 10-bit recording at 200Mbps, both using All-Intra compression. Support for anamorphic 4K capture will also be added at that point.

With attachments such as the DMW-XLR1 accessory microphone unit, the GH5 promises to be a great tool for video enthusiasts and pros.

4K 60p video

The eye-catching feature on the GH5 is its ability to shoot 4K footage at up to 59.94p and 48p (or 50p if you're shooting for PAL). Footage is oversampled from 5.1K, thanks to full sensor readout, meaning sharp footage that takes advantage of the full size of the sensor. Internal recording will be limited to 8-bit 4:2:0 IPB encoding at up to 150Mbps but with higher quality available if an external recorder is used. 4K video is shot using the full width of the sensor and has no time restrictions.

At lower frame rates, the camera can capture 10-bit, 4:2:2 footage internally: the kind of quality you needed an external recorder to capture from the GH4.

Advanced DFD

The GH5 features the latest iteration of Panasonic's Depth From Defocus autofocus system, which uses pairs of images and an understanding of a lens's out-of-focus rendering to create a depth map of the scene, to speed up focusing. The latest version samples the scene more often and builds up a higher-resolution depth map, for faster, more decisive focus.

The GH5 also gains a more advanced algorithm for interpreting movement within the scene, to reduce the risk of the camera getting confused by movement as it builds its depth map. This, combined with faster sensor readout, should mean faster and more accurate autofocus. Further to this, Panasonic has added more AF configuration options to help the camera understand subject movement and the correct response to it.

Still image processing

Panasonic is keen to stress the GH5 is intended for stills as well as video. The greater processing power of the GH5 allows the camera to consider a wider area of the image when calculating the color values from each pixel. Panasonic says this makes it possible to extract greater JPEG resolution from the captured image.

The GH5's greater processing power also allows more sophisticated sharpening, promising reduced over-shoot that can cause unnatural-looking 'halos' on high-contrast edges.

Updated noise reduction is also supposed to be better at distinguishing between noise and detail, meaning that detail is better preserved during the noise reduction process.

'6K' Photo and advanced video-derived shooting modes

Also on the stills side of things, the GH5 offers higher resolution versions of its video-derived stills features such as 4K Photo, Post Focus and Focus Stacking. The GH5 uses its higher pixel count sensor and more powerful processor to add '6K Photo' modes at up to 30 fps, in addition to 4K Photo at up to 60 fps. As before, there are various ways of triggering the mode to ensure you have a short video clip from which you can extract exactly the moment you wanted to capture.

However, don't go assuming that '6K Photo' mode is taking images from an area of the sensor 6000 pixels across: it isn't. Instead it's capturing images with the roughly the same number of pixels as a very widescreen 6000 x 3000 video clip would have. It's not the most misleading marketing statement we've ever seen, but be aware that 6K may not mean quite what you might expect.

Availability

The Panasonic GH5 will be available in late March for $1999 (body only).

If you mean the studio test scenes, check the list closely. Panasonic changed its naming scheme such that the camera's name is DC GH5, not DMC GH5, which means it appears out-of-sequence with all the other Panasonics.

GH5 is basically a very good video camera with reasonable price considering it has many video features consumers have never seen. I hope that GH6 will be full frame because GH5 pretty much has everything you can do with a MFT sensor size. Sensors will evolve, but in 2-3 years it is a lot to ask because internal 10-bit video actually was one of the key features which made the difference compared to GH4.

Maybe Sony A7R III will be the ultimate consumer camera which can do both stunning stills and vivid video. Price probably will be at least double compared to GH5.

I did not read all 1199 postings. Perhaps there should be a search only within a thread(?) ?In “Teathered Shooting” : “Apple OS” should be: “Apple iOS” or “Apple Mac OS” or both.In “High-resolution Anamorphic Shooting” : “...DCI style ~ 19:1 image, ...” should be: “...DCI-style ~ 19:10 image, ...”.I did not work as a copy editor, but these things bug me.In any case - keep up the great reviews.

HEVC h.265 is the medium of 4k Blu-ray. It is also the best format to stream 4k. If Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, or any other party earnest to promote 4k discs or streaming, it would make sense to promote it for all to promote hardware, software, and display devices that support it. I see no evidence of this. Please prove me wrong. The 9th-generation Intel processors and 2018-grade NVIDIA chips might get one there, but why so late? Why no off-the-shelf resources available earlier, in 2014, when prosumer 4k devices became available?

Sorry to be picky, but ... when something is said to be happening "in the summer" then it's quite confusing for those of us living in the other hemisphere of the world (which includes Australia, New Zealand, lots of Africa, South America, etc. etc, etc).

Sorry for the ambiguity. That's the exact language Panasonic used to describe the timing. Since we're in the northern hemisphere it's easy to forget about seasons in the southern hemisphere. (Though if anyone should remember it's me, given that I lived in the southern hemisphere for a while...)

Firmware 1.0 in the 6k photo mode where you just start/stop video normally (so basically just a normal video recording mode, there were two other 6k photo modes that didn't have audio) with a 180-degree shutter would record high-res 4:3 video already (this is literally straight from the metadata on some GH5 video I shot in January):4992x3744 @ 4:3200Mbps (approx) HEVC (i.e. H.265)29.97fps2-channel 128Kbps/48Khz AAC (LC) audioSo it's more some additional hi-res 4:3 modes than an all-new one - I assume you get 24, 25 fps now?Oh and the handy anamorphic display.

I know it's in extremely low demand, and I might possibly be the only GH5 user requesting this feature, but is there any 120.00fps feature? I requested this on the Panasonic forums and a moderator said my suggestion has been noted and will be forwarded to the engineering department.

Actually DFD partially helps with Olympus glass per their Japanese gf9 / gx850 brochure. Just don't get the full benefit but my Panasonic gx850 sure focuses both faster and accurately than the em5 mk2 and penf Olympus lenses I have tried.

I have not compared vis a vis, I don't have the EM1 or the GH5, but the GH5 looks like it can do a rather remarkable quick/accurate job at focusing. The EM1 MKII though is very fast too. Anyhow- DFD helps with Olympus lenses and 3rd party lenses too, just not to the same degree as Panasonic lenses.

...good to know, as I may upgrade to a GH5 shortly, and would be disappointed to find the same 24/25fps > 30/60hz clash, causing judder when panning, ...but I'm kind of prepared for it, as you are the first to mention it has improved.

I trust you were panning while filming at 24 or 25fps? (29.97fps is smooth on any 30 or 60Hz screen, including the GH4).

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We contacted Panasonic and the company clarified that it had planned to include 48p on the camera, but that it's not currently implemented. However, since 48p was listed on the pre-release specifications provided to the media, it has been widely reported that the GH5 supports 48p shooting.

Looking at the image comparison, it's not clear to me that this image sensor is actually a step up.

Taking a comparison set of this camera, GH4, GM5, and Fuji XT2, in the comparison tool in the review, I could not see any genuine meaningful improvements in image quality from this new camera in RAW up to ISO 1600. JPEG processing, sure.

That's says to me this industry can improve sustainability of our environment by focusing more on firmware updates!

Panasonic never did let me have a GH5 for long enough to run moire and aliasing tests, as my GH4 is amazing for that in 4k (although poor in 1080p, my FF Canon is considerably better). My concern about the GH5 is that moving from a "one sensor pixel per video pixel" to a small amount of scaling can often produce aliasing/moire issues (a greater amount of scaling tends to work better), so I'd suggest to look for that.My RX100V does 4k by scaling from all the pixels of its 20MP sensor (well, those in the 16:9 crop) and it's really pretty good, but not up to the GH4 in 4k. (I doubt anyone would be unhappy.)If I ever get a GH5 for long enough I'll test it, but I held off buying one as I didn't want a step back on that issue.

I left their ill fated naming program after the OM1 - originally they had named their SLR "M-1" but Leica said no ...I always wondered why would anybody name a SLR starting with an M, as in Messucherkamera ?Now their names are just riddles with tag ons ...

Video super champ. Not cheap, but worth it, I suspect, for pro-videographers, especially those who have bigger Panasonic systems and what something more portable for particularly rough field conditions...

Perhaps I just didn't read closely enough, but it seemed as if you were shy about talking about the similarities and differences to "the other" top end Micro 4/3 camera, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II. I have read your review of that camera and, it seemed to me, you may have liked it more.

We weren't trying to avoid direct comparisons with the Olympus. The GH5 presented us with so many new things to test (and write about) that we just ran out of time to do a lot of side-by-side comparisons.

Please don't interpret that as us liking one camera more than the other. They're both very popular here at the DPReview offices, but they have very different strengths/weaknesses.

"the GH5 becomes the first Panasonic to allow the use of Auto ISO in manual exposure mode. It also maintains exposure compensation when doing so. This is true for both stills and video." Not the first - the G80 (aka G8/G81/G85) has this feature too - only in M mode rather than "Movie M" mode, but works for both stills and video in M mode.

While I understand that the obvious comparison is against the GH4, I do wish more reviews would compare against the G80 - it has quite a few of the same advantages over the GH4 that the GH5 does, but is well under half its price... Yes the GH5 is better than the G80 but I'm not convinced it's better enough to justify that huge price difference...

a bit of footage after using GH5 in high frame rates(both 180p and 60p 4k) in real world, real situations. Vimeo compression took away some quality, but you can still get an impression. If you have 3 minutes, enjoyhttps://vimeo.com/214452695

Panasonic is planning to add 400mbps ALL-I video encoding for GH5 this summer, but that does not raise the bar of image quality for the videos recorded by the camera as ALL-I has much higher requirements for the bitrate (compared to IPB) for an equivalent image quality. I've created a petition for Panasonic to add support for high bitrate IPB modes into GH5.

I didn't realise that until I looked it up. It seems that ALL-I the only benefit I can see is would be that its easier to edit with. I signed but I don't know how much good it will do or not. This interview Joseph did with a Panasonic rep back in February mentioned the codec, but he never said that ALL-I will give better image quality, just much larger files and better to edit with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51CDeENsmpQ&list=PLRe8DcOhgsloChzSSPPOkHDPCrUoffqKc&index=2

Besides easier editing ALL-I codec brings one more feature - it is not affected by the speed of movements in the frame. It's an intra-frame codec so every frame is a self sufficient image (just like JPEG). For IPB the motion-tracking part of the compression is the largest contributor into the final compression ratio, but camera's ability of tracking the movements is limited by the amount and speed of RAM and computing power available (modulo the thermal envelope), as the compressing engine needs to find new location for moving objects in each next frame and bitmap comparison is a very CPU and memory access intensive operation.

Thus in case of shooting rapidly moving subjects (e.g. sports), ALL-I may give a better image quality (compared to IPB), but for less dynamic subjects IPB will bring a noticeably higher image quality for the same bitrate.

A bit of GH5 footage (including the unedited out-of-camera footage - linked from the video's description) for those who wants to see how the IQ is changing when VFR is used: https://youtu.be/vSCJdLlJ3Bw

To me it is apparent that as soon as VFR exceeds the maximum non-VFR frame rate, the IQ drops significantly.

I noticed that I can no longer get CS6 Adobe Photoshop to read the .rw2 raw file from the GH5. It reads the .rw2 from the GH3 but I guess they tweaked it a bit with this model. I have kept up to date with the latest "available" updates from Adobe but I hate to think I have to go to CC Adobe just to read the newest .rw2file in Photoshop.

The conversion to DNG is done with Adobes DNG Converter of course. The reason the plugin exists, is that the converter itself does not offer a user friendly way of converting single images. It also does not handle well on the commandline (its commandline interface is weird at its best). The plugin offers easy right click context menus or toolbar buttons for converting any RAW image to DNG.

The plugin is just a wrapper around the Adobe converter, safe to use, no extra binaries required.I use it since I upgraded to G80 and GX80. Adobe CS6 will never ever read the RW2 files of these cameras, support has been dropped. By converting to DNG I'm fine again! o)

how to you color profile the camera in focus stacking mode ... or does it have some kind of color profiling integration with the likes of Color Checker Passport orbasicColor profiling software ... or is it Panasonic JPG all the way ???

PAL and NTSC ?These standards from the analog TV age are completely obsolete in a digital age.So it does not make any sense whether the frame rate is 59.94 or 60.00 or 50 or 72 fps.So I set my video cameras to 60 / 30 fps (so-called 'NTSC') to get a higher frame rate while I live in the EU where NTSC was not the standard in the analog era.

Flicker can ruin your shots and I know that because I have experienced it myself...When you shoot at 25 or 50 fps in a country where the electricity is running at 60 hz or vice versa you get a kind of rolling bar moving down your screen that is impossible to remove.

Not just in Japan, but most laptops screens (in all MacBook Pros, etc) run at 60Hz in 50Hz countries. This includes some lower-cost LCD TVs. 60Hz panels are everywhere, and it's why 30fps is the default for most consumer cameras shooting video.

30fps looks smooth on 90% of LCD panels, as most run at 60Hz regardless of power supply freq. Playing 25fps on many panels (-that are 60Hz) looks juddery even in 50Hz 'PAL' countries.

I've owned several Panasonics in the past and currently use the GX7 which I like.

However, after using a Sigma DP3 Merrill for the last few years, the Panasonic images (stills) pale by comparison. I'm planning to add a Sigma SD1 Merrill shortly with a couple of fine lenses which should run circles around the GH5. I seldom shoot video so I won't dwell on that. The Video on the GX7 is fine for what I need.

But you can't realistically use that Sigma over ISO 200, and the stills frame rate capacity of either Panasonic is much greater. (This may not matter to you. But it would matter to many general Panasonic users.)

In other words, no Sigma is a direct competitor for either this GH5 or the GX7.

Nonsense! A camera must be judged on its ultimate picture quality at the ISO level at which it looks its best...AND with the lenses which bring out the best in its sensor/processing. Thus there is no question that a Sigma camera using the best Sigma lenses would handily beat a Panasonic camera. And if it's ISO performance that you question, that is only because you haven't yet learned to efficiently and artistically harness Thomas Edison's gift to photographers: the electric light.

I have owned GH2, 3, 4, and now 5, I mainly use it for stills for sports and scenery. The GH5's AFC capabilities blows the GH4 away. For that alone I would buy a GH5! It's video abilities are well applauded by too many, so I find it hard to think their are still some questioning that area? Using a 200-800mm (equivalent) for sports such as football, where one minute they are 4metres from you and the next minute 70metres away. There is no match to the Leica f4-6.3 that is so small and light in comparison to anything else that you can comfortably handhold it and in low light conditions........ I am not bagging anything else just pointing out it's positives. :-)

Me too,have the G7 just for the video part,l have also the Sigma DP1,2,3 Merrill series.Pictures from every other camera i have tested, is not so sharp and they lack microcontrast. Tried a Sony A7R2, it seems that the details are washed out, Lack of detail in the background when you zoom in on a photo taken with the Sony versus Merill.And you can get very good results with higher Iso on Merill. :)

I don't have great eyes (wear specs) and I find the rear screen resolution and increased EVF resolution a massive benefit not only when taking shots, but playing them back! Lumix have come a long way in that regard. Also while I mainly shoot still, I still do a bit of video, so the GH5 is a killer when looking at an all in one camera. I love the LUMIX menu system and also how much customization there is available with all the dials and buttons too. Just my taste I suppose...all the other brands are great too.

I am so fickle about what to buy right now, but I just sold my gh4 and will buy one of these on the 21st. The only drawback that bothers me is that the IBIS sync with the Oly Pro lenses will only work on the Panasonic lenses, not the Zuiko Pros with IBIS sync. I wonder if that is something that could change with firmware updates?

Panasonic should offer a firmware patch that includes a submenu with standardized modes for video tracking AF: "follow the ball" for sports, "largest face" or group of faces, backlit face, dark background, dark face / light shirt, dancers (back-lit, spot-lit, or sun-lit), etc. The multiple bar customization options are too difficult to select by trial and error.

Nice if DPR were to corroborate video AF comparisons to the OM-D EM1ii, a6500, 80D, or even the G80/85. Others have tried this, but more evidence is helpful. The existing tests may contradict because the subjects involve different light conditions or contrasts. Alas, the other models do better or fail less often.

Meanwhile, GH5 buyers who need reliable AF can: a) avoid wide apertures or ambiguous lighting or contrast; b) use MF and chain a close subject in one place; c) use MF, keep the subject at least 4 meters distant, and set the MF near infinity; or d) cut-away to b-roll footage, or any overlay, if all else fails.

Because of, what directors say, "Action!" Subject, camera, and shooter all move. The shooter can't stare at a screen and jab a finger every second. Overlay or cutaway shots are used all the time, often with frequency approaching a burst rate: subject - interviewer, athlete - spectator, predator - prey, driver - road, etc.

As a working professional who lives in both the stills and video world, I'm not sure a lot of the haters "get" how media is created by organizations and the realities of timelines and budgets.

I've shot on video cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They're great when you have the time, budget, and personnel for a big VIDEO project. I've shot stills with film and digital of different formats. Great when you're shooting ONLY stills.

But... When you need to shoot stills AND videos quickly or to document an event easily, I'll take a mirror-less hybrid any day. I've shot around the world and sometimes, you don't want or need a hulking stills or video camera. I'm not the only one who's noticed that smaller/lighter gear sometimes allows you to get better shots because either you blend in or non-professional talent are less intimidated by smaller cameras.

The vast majority of camera buyers do not work for media organisations. For them, the emphasis on video is something they are paying for, but don't need.

Video and stills use the same technology, but the way in which they exploit that technology is different. There is no need for a stills lens to focus smoothly and silently, or change aperture continuously. In fact, it just slows the camera down when shooting on the street or at a sports event.

So video lenses and stills lenses, and AF systems, have some very different design requirements which are largely contradictory.

The sensor requirements are not the same either. What is good for landscape still images (high resolution) is not good for video because it requires more processing and interpolation, and increases rolling shutter by increasing readout times.

So there is a market for cameras which are stills biased and don't compromise. We don't all want or need the same thing, but we pay for it anyway. Does that confound you?

@57even -- Maybe you are actually paying less. With the shrinking camera market, the development cost for optimized stills-only gear and video-only gear will go up with time. Those companies building hybrids are likely doing so for two reasons. 1. the hybrid attracts a diverse customer base (and is attractive to anyone "moving up" from a phone. 2. The development cost of one hybrid system is assuredly considerably less than the development cost of two different individually optimized systems.

@Dragonrider - I don't see any evidence that cameras are getting any cheaper, do you?

And no, it is never cheaper to design a system to do two things. It is only cheaper for users to buy one device instead of two, provided they accept the compromises involved. If you don't want the second device, then it isn't cheaper and you have a less optimised device.

I don't think that has much to do with the enthusiast market, personally. Sure, phones destroyed the P&S market, which was keeping the camera companies afloat, but the real issue is that the technology has barely crept forward in the last 5-6 years. There is much less incentive to upgrade.

If I owned a D7200, why would I want a D7500 for instance? The D7200 had the best performing sensor in the business, for general photography.

Nikon and Canon are just doing the same old thing and expecting everything to get better. I don't think they have any idea what to do, other than keep churning out the same boring black blobs.

And for all Panasonic's expertise in video, it hasn't saved their camera division.

Absolutely the technology has matured at least until some breakthrough comes along that changes the game. There clearly isn't much more to be gained from silicon sensors, but if somebody comes up with layered quantum dots that capture all colors at each pixels (kind of like a Foveon), there is room for at least two stops of sensitivity improvement. That would move the market forward. In the meantime, we will just have to be happy with what we get. Panasonic's effort in hybrid cameras is a attempt to find a niche, but as you point out, it doesn't seem to be a savior (in spite of some really nice cameras in the line).

57 even, is it your position that if the GH5 did not have video capabilities you would have more of a desire to purchase the camera? And you would expect the price to be lower in that configuration?

Prices for ok, good, great & exceptional image quality are already defined in the photography market. The GH5 falls directly in the center of this price scheme. I do not see how it realistic to think Panasonic would release its flagship still camera (with or without video) at a discounted price.

For all that GH5 has, I see it as a great value but that is through a professional's eyes. Meaning I can spend $2,000 for the body and go create images I can make money with. Giving a great ROI.

No, my point was that the market is very diverse, but every product out there seems to assume that the only difference between photographers is their budget. This is why the market is in a tailspin. The GH5 is a very good product for those that need it, and a very useless product for those that don't. But all cameras, more or less, have the same set of features. The whole paradigm is working off the same baseline. It's why cameras are not attracting the attention of new buyers.

So you reckon all cameras should take calls and support messaging and Facebook? Multitools are fine for occasional emergency DIY, but they are not used by craftsmen. I want a tool dedicated to a particular job, not a bucket of features that compromise everything I want to do.

I just read over the interview and it mainly seems to mention that Olympus decided to make their camera more of a still oriented camera than video oriented camera. There has to be something more that I missed...

@57even Generalized tools that can do more things well is more cost effective to produce then specialised tools that only do one thing well because economies of scale. That is why even stills oriented cameras have video function because its manufactured with to have the widest possible market at the lowest possible cost. I work in this industry so I know. The you should not pay what you don't use philosophy simply do not apply in this industry.

The reality here is companies who cater to purists tend to charge higher not less for specialized tools. Did Nikon charge less whe they released the still focused DF? No they slapped a premium instead. Look at Leica and the digital medium format brands. Look how much you need to pay for dedicated pro cameras like the Canon c300.

The pricing policy of camera companies is their problem, but there is no innate reason why you cannot make specialised versions of the same basic components and products, but tune them for different users. Car companies do it all the time. So does Sony with its three full frame models.

90% of pricing is decided by the marketing department. The Df did not have to be expensive. They could have put the same spec parts in a standard chassis and charged less for it. It was the retro-styling exercise that induced the bump in price.

Good, sensible comments and one of the most vital issues is whether you have the camera with you ... I have been a rather keen photographer for six decades and have evolved from Leica 111a/c via Leicaflex, Minolta 9000, various Nikons, Sony Alpha700 and now have a Lumix with Summilux lens. I no longer lug 10-12 kilos of equipment with me, and yes my 400mm Novoflex and bellows with 100mm were great, as is my Sony 70-200 2.8f! But they are heavy, and yes an SLR is lovely to use but my little Lumix is portable and let us face it, takes great pictures. Recently I realised that having a Video capability included is simply great! I am not competing with Hollywood, but sometimes that short clip of something is really gratifying. My view is you should enjoy your hobby and your results, and not forget a professional has other demands on him - I have been down that route as well!

@57even I think the truth is more complicated then just that. As companies do want to sell more cameras (keep the price low) yet must also make a good profit to consider the project worthwhile (give it a premium). The DF premium pricing was partly a marketing experiment and partly due to the fact that a "pure stills" camera has a smaller then the usual market then their hybrid DSLRs.

When you say Sony's Full Frame cameras do you mean the a7 and A mount series? Those are all hybrids. In fact, considered by many as the best hybrids in the industry. The only truly tuned stills camera I can recall from Sony is their FF point and shoot RX1 series and that thing commands quite a premium for what you get.

As for body design, that is another complex topic. In general, what truly raises the cost of many items of this class comes down again to economics of scale not necessarily body styling per se.

I wonder why they don't have such lower ISO as an option. Would it hurt video quality? The G85 doesn't even allow ISO 100 for video, which is ridiculous, especially when you're a newbie trying to shoot video in the middle of the day in Miami without an ND filter! Its just not possible in that situation to avoid aperture diffraction and/or overly fast shutter speeds. That was me a few months ago...

This is my lack of understanding about how sensors are designed (would love to know more about it from knowledgeable people), but I guess designing a lower base ISO (say 12 or 25) would hurt High ISO performance.

This is a non problem for serious indie filmmakers who are lighting their shots and trying to stay as much as possible in the lower ISO range anyway.

But hurting High ISO is a sales killer for the casual shooter who doesn't want to bring along lighting gear, or still photographers shooting at night.

In the end, we have to remember the GH5 is nothing more than a consumer product, and has to have a broad appeal to the mass market, so its sensor is designed having High ISO as a much greater priority than base ISO 12 / 25.

Personally, I know I'd pay serious money for a firmware that could unlock ISO 12 in my GH4, allowing it to produce insanely clean shadows.

But it's never gonna happen probably due to sensor design limitations.

I may be able to help some folks understand ISO on professional video cameras. On pro cameras we often don't change the iso from the native value, which is often 800, (unless we absolutely have too). Just for the record too, Panasonic has a vari cam with two native ISO's (one for lower light use). I use an FS5, with native ISO of 1000. Its important to work at native ISO (or in and around it) because it is where the sensor performs optimally. The Gh5 has many pro feature, if they included method of behind the lens ND, they would completely own the day for filmmakers. Lowering the ISO's does not improve the sensor performance on a video camera and probably not on a stills camera either, your gaining down actually degrades the DR. Have a look here

"Lowering the ISO's does not improve the sensor performance on a video camera and probably not on a stills camera either, your gaining down actually degrades the DR."

Why no improvement? If you're allowing the sensor to eat up more photons per exposure (say base ISO 25 vs ISO 200), you're allowing the shadows to be rendered with more signal, leading to much cleaner shadows (which in my opinion is a m4/3's video output biggest problem, noisy shadows).

"With the Alexa, you have a bit more than 14-stop of dynamic range and at 800 ISO, the amount of shadow detail and overexposed detail are evenly split, 7-stops under and 7-stops over.

At lower ISO's, the number of total stops of DR don't change, but by giving the sensor more exposure, you are gaining shadow detail but losing overexposure detail. So at 400 ISO, you have 14-stops of DR but 8-stops under and 6-stops over. Plus your overall signal is cleaner."

In other words: unlike still photography sensors which have uneven above and below middle grey DR, the Alexa's (and I suppose RED and everyone else) sensor gives even DR for shadows and highlights.

By exposing at ISO 800, you're generally overexposing (already well lit) shadows, and so pulling them further away from the sensor's noise floor.

When you adjust these shadows back in post, you end up with cleaner shadows.

I think Kubrick influenced lots of indie filmmaker to try to use natural light, but in the digital realm it leaves much to be desired. I see lots of low budget movies that are made in the dark that look terrible.

@rialcnis, I see where you're coming from and do agree some movies shot on film have a particular aesthetics it's hard to beat (most of Nolan films come to mind).

That said, I disagree we're too far off with digital.

In the earlier days of digital cinema (Panavision Genesis, Sony F900), I agree it was somewhat easy to spot which movie was shot digitally, it was visible in the overall rendering, highlights and even DOF (like the ones shot on the F900).

But since many years ago (probably since Benjamin Button or Hugo), if I don't look it up first on the internet, I have a real hard time saying if a movie was shot on digital or film.

And even those I know were digital, like the recent Ghost in the Shell, are gorgeous to look at. Ghost in the Shell is particularly one of the most breath taking movies ever (visually speaking).

The Revenant and Skyfall are another 2 amazing examples.

Film is amazing, but current digital cinema cameras are essentially at the same level (if not above).

@marco_napoli My understanding is that a sensor performs best at its base ISO. For example, see the following comment about the D810, which has a base of 64 but can be set at 32: "the D810's base ISO is 64. At all setting above or below that, any setting is the equivalent of turning up the gain (effectively, the volume) on a pre-amp. As gain is increased or decreased two things can happen- the effective dynamic range is decreased (with the d810 , up to about ISO 1600 this decrease is negligible) and there's a change in the signal to noise ratio. With the D810 and most of the latest generation full frame and APS-C cameras the increase on the noise side is almost non-existent from base ISO to 400, and not very noticeable unless you are "pixel peeping" from 400 to 3200 and is easily handled with noise reduction algorithms in your raw processing software with out a loss of detail resolution." https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikon-d810-with-iso-64-32.494930/

@marco_napoli I wish I could agree, I really do. Digital has so many good points in terms of usability. Maybe it's just me, but even some of the best digital films drive me nuts. I think I'm allergic. If it's a film I actually care about, the digital look can ruin it for me, It almost becomes unwatchable, otherwise I don't even notice.

I didn't like Revenant anyway, but thats a good example of a digital look I can't stand. It looks flat, with no depth and the color is barren and grey. The aesthetics of film for me makes all the difference. Not that I like all Nolan movies, but he is one of the few filmmakers who apparently sees things as I do and oddly the only film I am looking forward to at the moment is Dunkirk.

I honestly don't understand how anyone can see even the best digital movies as anywhere near film quality....yet. Maybe some day.

On the other hand, digital makes it possible for more indie filmmakers. That benefit I fully agree with.

But for anything else, with external recorder, good noise reduction software, and skilled crew behind, I can see a GH4 or 5 being good enough for just about anything you wanna shoot.

IMO, it's probably better (in some areas) than 100k+ video cameras of the past, like the CineAlta F900.

That's no small feat. We're essentially getting a consumer camera that beats what George Lucas had several years ago with his unlimited Hollywood powers.

Up to that point, I can only praise the GH series. For an untrained eye, maybe the images produced could easily pass as Hollywood quality.

But regarding your question, that's where my praise stops.

The same way APS-C in still photography is already good enough for anything (no matter what the FF crowd says), 135 cameras offer an extra layer of quality over something that was already "good enough".

And at the same pace, DMF cameras offer another layer of extra quality over FF.

So when you factor in that DMF added quality and you take it as your standard, it's super hard to go back to APS-C and be completely happy (even though realistically speaking APS is indeed good enough).

I think it's safe to say Hollywood digital cameras are like DMF to still photography.

In my "Allergic," post I had written longer to try to explain what I mean, but the forum word limit forced me to cut out most of it and I ran out of time.

Lots of good films are digital. I binge watch plenty of Netflix or Amazon series without having allergic reactions and don't think about it being digital if it tells good stories and has interesting characters, actors, direction, writing and originality. Likewise I watch lots of old films on Turner Classic Movies channel and don't think much about the fact that it's on film. I don't revel in most films just because they were on film.

Nowadays scifi special effects, 3d anmation etc, dominate so many films, that for for me it has become humdrum even though I was totally into holography and 3D animation since it began, making my own holograms and later learning Softimage 3D and earlier software since the beginning of Personal Computing. Now, I'm not amazed. (Contd)

@marcio_napoli (contd) at 5 yr old when I first saw "This is Cinerama," I was hooked on immersive, latest technology movies. Nowadays I can't stand IMAX, or 3D, especially if it was digital to begin with so I pass on all that

I've been a Stanley Kubrick fan since I first saw The Killing on TV as a ten yr old. Something intangible about his films and early photography. I grew up with Look magazine. David Lean and William Wyler were in 2nd and 3rd place as my favorite filmmakers. (I couldn't watch more than 15 minutes of the horrid Ben Hur remake) much of what I love and marvel at with Kubrick and these favorite directors, is deep in every frame of film.

Bottom line in what I'm saying is similar to what you were discussing about wishing you had better ISO. There is an artificiality in digital films and instead of wallowing in the beauty of film grain there is the annoying noise, lack of depth and a flatness you don't see in real film.

@rialcnis, very nice posts, I enjoyed a lot reading them. So it seems we're, at least at some point, with similar views regarding this whole digital thing.

Both of us are after special nuances, subtleties, we care a lot about "look". In my usual posts about photography, I'm constantly annoying the rest of the forums saying how much I miss CCD, and the overall rendering of old school cameras (I recently bought a Nikon D2x and wrote a quite polemic post on the Nikon forum, mainly saying who much I'm also allergic to the rendering from modern sensors).

What we're looking for may not be exactly the same thing, but we care for a "look" that's being phased out by new, modern standards. So what I'm saying is that I totally get your POV.

Now I'll guess on something here. Maybe what you're really bothered may not be actually the recording medium itself, but maybe today's movies aesthetics and overall art direction?

The first was shot on film, with a tad minor color grading, less CGI, less use of chroma key, less art directed for lack of a better term. It looks like you're watching reality, a real story captured on cameras.

OTOH, The Hobbit trilogy was made using modern standards of art direction, lighting, direction of photography, color grading, etc.

The problem is that it was shot on digital? Not sure. But what I'm super sure is that it's too art directed, to the point you think you're watching a computer animation, or a video game. It never looks real.

The images are all too HDRishy, too color graded... it just looks wrong.

That's a problem with most movies today, because digital cinema is just like digital still photography, in the sense it's too easy to overdo on PP and make it all look fake HDR.

With digital, you've gotta remember less is more, and force yourself into that rule.

Now with film, I believe it's easier to stick with film's own look, because that was your goal in the first place.

DPs chose their film stock by the aesthetics that particular film gives.

Can you color grade it and make it fake looking as well? Yes you can, but whenever film is the selected medium, I think DPs just want to stick with the film's own aesthetics and don't grade it too much.

In other worlds: I'm not sure digital capture itself is the problem.

The problem is "overdoing" things, the "more is more" mentality that modern filmmakers have, and that's getting associated with digital capture in the long run.

I like digital a lot (Ghost in the Shell is visually hard to beat), but if someday the industry just stops using film, it will be a tremendous loss.

Film must always be there as an option.

On a side note, I'm always planning to go back to film for my still photography :D It always remains a "maybe in the future" kind of thing, but the idea never fades away.

Hi folks, sorry i have not been on the forum for quite a while. With regards professional film making & the GH5, or other crop sensor consumer cameras. The differences in pro cameras vs consumer cameras are found in the codec's, DR, sensor tuning, Mb/s and color bit depth. Of course everything is about compromises and how much PITA factor you want to deal with. I was talking with one of my colorist buddies two nights ago about cameras and about his experiences with various consumer cameras. He and I do, very much like 4/3 for film making, I love them for photography too; I just bought the EM-1M2 (also have GX85 its amazing), I will probably grab GH5 in a day or so (since I just sold the FS5 two days ago). From a pragmatic approach when production has a decent budget, it will rent an Arri/Red/BM. Cine cams come and go quick and the cost is breathtaking,Panasonic offers a very complete and capable video cameras that bridges the gap of consumer and entry level pro well.

lefkop, so you've had the FS5, how interesting! For my next indie short film, I'm deciding between the FS5 and GH5.

Would love to hear your experiences and how they compare. But even before you grab your GH5, can you tell us a bit more about the FS5? Mainly regarding internal 4k 4:2:0 codec, is it too fragile? I'm also super curious about base ISO (I'm always lighting my shots, so high quality base ISO is a must), is it noisy?

I've heard that it's super noisy in S-log3 at ISO 3200, but what about other picture profiles, isn't ISO 1000 the base ISO? Is it noisy at ISO 1000 ?

Hi Marcio, so the FS5 is a great camera, its base ISO is 1000, you can push a couple of stops up I never shot 6400 with it (I used lit sets). I generally used it for HD 422 not the 4k 420, but the 420 is fine overall. Its a professional codec so you can throw it around in post somewhat. Its not noisy.With regards to S log 3, there is a number of things to consider. First its really not iso 3200 as it says its, its the base ISO of 1000 but because the cure has been shifted it reads it as 3200, it is not, this is true on the A7S series too. You are recording less data in the highlights and there is an emphasis into the shadows subsequently you will see noise if shooting in lower light/less DR. Therefore S log is great to use outdoors or in bright high DR situations. Low light - dont use these profiles, the DR does not match the profile, your pulling noise out shadows because of the shift from 709 curve.

I now own both the GH5 and the Olympus OMD EM1 M2 instead of the FS5. I did get the Vlog update to the GH5. The FS5 is a very practical camera, the electronic ND filter is flat out incredible. Its ergonomics and ease of use are fantastic, if you need autofocus its only fair. With regards to noise again, its best to use a camera at its base ISO. By moving the GH4 down to 200 ISO, its crushes the DR and it can create more noise because noise is really a result of how much light is falling or not on the sensor. More light gives you less noise no matter what the ISO setting is. Lights Camera Action - its not just a saying (LOL). I found this statement someplace on web site which holds true with regards to noise;It is just as correct to say the lowest possible level of noise is achieved when as much light as possible is hitting the sensor (without overexposing the image) and the ISO is as high as possible (without overexposing the image).

@VisualFX A Panasonic rep said they didn't add H.265 because most editors didn't support it and its much harder and slower to edit with at the moment than H.264, but then again their 10-bit 4:2:2 LongGOP files are not quite easy to edit with at the moment either.

Well "Reps" will say pretty much anything and never anything negative about their products. I've been editing my Samsung NX1 H.265 files on a 5-year old AMD FX-8350 with an older GPU just fine. Can render with several effects tracks not in real-time but fast enough.

To Dpreview,I appreciate your reviews, however I find the GH5 review lacking an obvious comparison page. I was expecting and hoping for a direct comparison with the Olympus EM1 mk2. Both cameras have the same price tag, both argue for best AF, both argue for great IS, Panasonic says the GH5 is also for stills. So I would like to see a page with a direct head to head. Which is better for AF?Which has better IS?Does the Panasonic AF four thirds lenses as fast as the Olympus EM1 mk2? I think they might be equal.Four thirds users want to know these answers, if not, then I do.Thank you

Well my Em1.2 for single shot AF is not as fast as my GH4 so I guess you have an answer there. Well this is especially true in low light. Nothing bad, the GH4 is just so fast. Em1.2 is just a tiny bit less fast and less decisive but with some lenses (I think 20 mm f1.7) the difference IS notable. I tested it 4 months ago so this is from memory.IQ: will be the same in RAW. Essentially. Oly has HiRes mode so if you can use that which is especially for landscapes etc true well that difference is as big as it can get actually. Also it has a lot lot less noise. 1600ISO is about as clean as ISO200. What would be interesting is C-AF with tracking etc. I like dhte GH4 already a lot but here the EM1.2 with birds etc indeed is better. Faster of course but also more accurate.In total I would say that for the money and if you are a hybrid shooter the Panasonic wins this. Better EVF, easier to learn with better menu's according to most people. But I am surely not going to switch.

To DPReview staffThank you for the good reviewI have a remark concerning the compare mode tool in the conclusion page.If you do a comparision with the GH4, the GH4 appears to be better in term of Raw quality, jpeg quality, Viewfinder rating and High ISO perf which is contradicting what you write in the different tests ?

All of our reviews use 'point in time' scores, meaning that the scores are relative to other competitive products at the time the review is written. (Usually, when the camera is relatively new.) As a result, it's difficult do a direct scoring comparison between a camera released today and one released three years ago.

The GH4 probably scored a bit higher at the time because relative to competitive models it stood out more in those categories, whereas today there may be other products that compete more effectively in the same categories.

Here's a link to an in-depth article that explains how the scoring system works.

Ok, so this camera compare tool, as it is, is useless and induces ambiguities for the readers.You should improve it or at least limit the camera list to relevant cameras, let say one year old cameras and write a disclaimer on top of the tool !Thanks

Dale, good review. Thanks! Regarding the the point in time scoring system. As every camera is scored at a different point in time It actually makes it impossible readers to compare cameras fairly. I wonder if an absolute scoring system would make comparisons between newer/older and cross platforms easier. This way someone trying to choose between say a second hand 5Dii and a new apsc camera would have a clear point of comparison.

Agree with Rouseabout - we already have the gold / silver / bronze awards that indicate the best cameras at a given point in time, scoring would be more useful if you did it in absolute terms. Or, failing that, at least indicate (for each review) what you are scoring against - i.e. would what the camera have to do in order to score 100..... as it stands it's just another random number :-)That said, the strength of dpreview reviews has never been the numbers, it's been the overall depth and attention to detail, and kudos to the team for maintaining that.

@ Rouseabout - In theory, at least, that is the measure that DXO Mark provides. Of course, DXO doesn't get into the operational details of the camera much, but at least it gives you a way to compare sensors. Beyond that, you just have to use your reasoning power since it would be virtually impossible for a site like DPReview to constantly reevaluate cameras and an "absolute scale" is not possible when looking at features because next year some camera will come up with a "must have" feature that nobody ever thought of before. The post focus capability of the newer Pannys is a good example. Heck, when the 5D II came out (I have one) nobody at the consumer level even dreamed of something called "4K" much less that it would be included in a still camera. The 5D II was ground breaking to include 1080.

@Dragonrider, so when that happens, you add 5 points (or whatever) for every camera that has 4k.... that's exactly the advantage of having absolute scoring is that it means the numbers do increase when manufacturers add more features, so we can compare this year's model to last year....

5 axis / E stabalization = terribleDual - Sensor/lens stabilization = great for long shots, apart from that , still that woozy tilt & pitch effect... even with wide angle lenses with moderate camera movement Hardly anyone seems to be talking about this terrible, (unusable for serious projects), stabilization effectWith the mark 1 12-35 with v 1.3 firmware there is only the option to turn sensor stabilization off on the lens barrel , turning off optical stabilization. too.So only ..crazy stabilization or nothing option..( so getting better stabilization results with Gh3 & 4 )Awaiting firmware update , mk1 to mk2 functionality later this yearThe latest lenses do not cure the sensor/E stabilization probsLooking at the dual & 5 axis stabilization makes me dizzy !!!In the meantime im stuck with a camera I feel I can only use on a tripodWould like to know if there are extra menu options available for those with the mark 2 lenses...ie optical stabilization with locked off sensor.

Sucks that Panasonic chose to use Contrast Detection AF AGAIN!!! This doesn't seem to be a bad camera, but for the price and large size I personally feel there are better mirrorless options for either the same or less money and are more compact. If mirrorless cameras are going to end up the size of pro DSLR's then the only benefit would be the EVF. One of the benefits of mirrorless is they are smaller due to lacking a mirror. Hmm.

Indeed - there are smaller and lighter options for micro 4/3 and other mirrorless. Personally, I haven't held a GH5, but a GH4 is just a tad small in my hands. The GH5 may hit the exact sweet spot in size. For me. Of course, sometimes I may want a truly small (or just smallish camera) - but if I want a camera that fits in my hands and is a pleasure to use, I suspect the GH5 will hit the sweet spot.

Don't forget that although the GH5 body is larger, the lens sizes remain the same which still gives a size weight advantage over the APS-C and Full Frame cameras -assuming that you want to use camera bodies with lenses : )

@Dan Tong, I see very little size advantage. APS-C lenses can be made small and light. Samsung NX proved it is possible. Also contrast focus for a $2K camera is a shame. Sony and other competitors have had better focus for years.

Panasonic should know better then to use just contrast AF. They've been leaders in old video cameras for years, and they should know contrast AF is not very good.

I've lugged these around and both weight and size wise they are like night and day. For my purposes they are, given the limitations of the m4/3 format, equivalent. I would always prefer Canon full frame for still photos, but Panasonic for video weight, and cost wise.

If you are still not convinced, think of the enormous savings on the camera bag :)

If Panasonic would had removed the still photo shooting ability, what kind of benefits the video capture ability would had gained assuming the price would still be the same? They could had used a lower frame rate RAW 12-bit or 14-bit 4K video (single or continuous shooting) as a substitute still photography and it would be great for timelapses because electronic shutter durability is practically indestructible.

MFT sensor size is a bit lame for still shooting in this price range, if they had to do significant compromises for video shooting.

I am 100% sure that you can take 2 pics One with Em1.2 and the other with D7200 or D500, XT2 or A6500. And you would not be able to tell the difference at A2+ size 99% of the time. Even D750 would have a hard time distinguishing itself from these latest mFT sensors.

You're paying extra for m4/3 format. Remember, smaller sensors are better for video, since larger sensors are much harder to focus and end up leaving in a horrible out-of-focus blur for everything. Photographers might love it, but actual cinematographers hate the shallow depth-of-field effect.

Not only does shallow depth-of-field look ugly in video, it's also harder to control. Editors always complain about cinematographer shots being out-of-focus, ruining their videos.

You can stop down lenses, but then you gather less light and you end up with almost the same IQ of m4/3, all while using larger lenses, having a larger sensor to cool down and stabilize... All things being equal FF is more capable, but first you gotta have all things equal.

Smaller sensors also have an advantage for video in that they can be read-out faster (for any generation of technology). This helps the GH5 exhibit much less rolling shutter than the a6300/a6500, for instance.

First, as @fatdeeman said, the out of focus backgrounds are intentional, it gives a greater sense of depth between the subject and the background and when the subject is isolated, you don't get distracted by busy backgrounds.

Yes it can be harder to focus with a shallower DOF but for background isolation its better. Shallower DOF doesn't mean less shots in focus if you know what you are doing.

The only times deeper DOF really work I think are for macro and landscape/wide shots where you want everything in focus and smaller sensors like M4/3 can give you that easier.

Second, when it comes to low light performance, noise and usable dynamic range ( when I say usable I mean less noise in shadows and better highlight rolloff), larger sensors usually are better with their bigger pixels.

Does it mean, if i stop down my sony a6000 to 3.2 compared to a mft with 2.0 to get same DOF (nearly with crop 1.5), i will get same image quality? Does it mean the sony has to increase iso to get same exposure level? If that became true, a bigger sensor would only be better if you need fast apertures to get a nice bokeh...

I thought the m4/3 appeal was suppose to be less expensive along with smaller glass and cameras. Pany must have missed that memo. $2K for a huge m4/3 camera without a lens is ridiculous. IMHO, Pany has priced themselves into a corner with m4/3 and with most of their marbles in that arena I have a feeling they are going to feel the hurt.

All the mirrorless players have tried to scale their systems so it hits as many price brackets as possible... One could argue Panasonic has been amongst the most successful, who else's lineup scales all the way from a tiny GM/GX to a GH? The advantage of smaller glass doesn't disappear just because this one particular body is larger than the rest, and it's still smaller than many video cameras it might be used instead of.

If you want small, there are many other m43 options.You can't unrealistically expect a powerhouse camera like the GH5 or EM1 II to be compact and dynamic at the same time....it's against the physics.

Personally, I don't get this constant bickering that M43 has to be small and cheap, not to mention the format did provide options for one to achieve it albeit with limitations (which is understandable.) One just has to choose the right tools for the right job.

Without trying to be a Pany apologist there are cheaper versions of m4/3 cameras. The GH5 sweet spot is video and compared with other selections the GH5 offers a compelling feature list and excellent overall quality (judging from the positive reviews so far). The GH5 even with the 100 dollar VLog upgrade still seems like an excellent value.

I would wager that many GH5 buyers already have lenses they can use. Having a somewhat larger body is an advantage with dealing with larger lenses -- mirrorless m4/3 still allows many 3rd party lens selections.

The m4/3 format has many advantages for video recording, however, I would still grab an a6300 or A7Sii when shooting extreme low light.

Put a Nikon (Canon, Sony) 70-200 f/2.8 in one hand, and a Panny 35-100 f/2.8 in the other, and then tell me about size and weight. And PLEASE, don't respond - "But they are not equiv. at the same aperture."

You're getting a camera capable of recording cinemagraphic quality video, along with an excellent stills capture, and you're complaining that it costs 2K? The technology that is available today is mind blowing.

Most everyone is missing my primary point. When m4/3 was first introduced the selling point was equal IQ to APS-C up to ISO 400 with less expensive cameras and lenses that are also smaller and lighter. Otherwise what would be the appeal? Panny with the GH5 has abandoned that concept of being less expensive along with smaller and lighter. That's all I was saying.

What's the deal with the high ISO Jpeg detail? In the studio comparison shots, the hair swatch just right of center of the scene seems to turn to mud in the GH5 shots at ISO 3200 and up -- at ISO 6400 there is almost no detail.The Fuji looks good, and the Oly looks decent at those higher ISO's.

Yep unfortunately Panasonic is a little bit aggressive with the noise reduction on the JPGs. I've noticed that as well and concluded that just creating your own JPGs out of the RAW will give you massively better results. I have a small comparison video exactly about that very issue. https://youtu.be/NHstrR2sbcI

Still don't understand why DPR says going from a 5.1K recording down to a lower resolution 4K recording is "oversampling"... This is downsampling. Oversampling is the process of creating ADDITIONAL samples usually by interpolating new sample values between two previously recorded sample points. However, the process of downsampling may create new samples points that do not exist in the original recording for a clean result, but many, if not all, of the original sample points will be discarded in the end, so the total number of samples will be lower, thus the term downsampling.

So. as far as I understand, the GH5 samples video at 5.1K (which is called "oversampling" because it is higher than the targeted 4K resolution), then downsamples it a 4K, rather than sampling it at 4K in one pass ?And what is the benefit of this ? To perfom some image corrections (lens correction, electronic stabilization. etc) on a higher resolution image to minimize the resulting loss of sharpness ?

It still amazes me how a 'm4/3' camera can cost $2,000 (without any lens), and be considered such a great camera. Once you start adding Pro lenses, then think about how well the IQ is at higher ISO levels with still pictures, it does not make any sense to me.

Maybe if you are looking for a very good 'video camera', it would be a good solution to your problem if you are looking to get very good videos. Still, to me, a m4/3 sensor camera for $4-5,000 (with lenses) that take just OK still pictures seems like quite a bit of money to me IMO, considering its competition with larger senor cameras.

BTW, how may professional videographers seriously look to buy a m4/3 cameras for taking serious video?

There are plenty of serious photographers and videographers the have switched to m4/3s with the release of this and the E-M1 Mk2. Why? because they delivery the goods. Image quality is excellent on both video and stills. What more do you need when you sell a thousands of dollars of images in an hour shoot?

In the cinematography world, believe it or not, there is more to imagery than just "how big's your sensor?". The BMPCC and BMMCC are both using super 16 sized sensors (smaller than m43), but directors of photography on movie sets are using them for feature films. Would it also kill you to know that all the industry standards for the video world use an s35 sensor (which is almost the same size as APS-C) and potentially cost upward of 70k? What? Not full frame??? Oh the humanity...

My current m4/3 camera, the GX8, with 12-35mm and 35-100mm f/2.8 weigh about the same as the D810 that I sold, body only. Add the 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Nikon is more than three times the weight (Yeah, yeah DOF, equivalence, light gathering... I know all the arguments. I sell images, not arguments.). I've been using m4/3 professionally since the GH1 in 2009, and my m4/3 photos sell just as well as those taken with other brands. Easy choice.

This camera benefits greatly from its DPReview classification, which doesn't pit it directly against, for example, the MUCH CHEAPER Sony A6500. This seems like a very good camera, and excellent for its sensor size, but it trails pretty significantly as a $2K body-only stills camera. As a video camera with rolling shutter issues, $2K doesn't really class it as a bargain either, although it's more competitive. I don't think "gold" rating is justified at this price point (especially when the A6500 is "silver"), but micro4/3 definitely has a dedicated following willing to pay more for high-featured big cameras with little sensors....

That's a pretty broad generalisation, the GH keeps getting bigger because there's a demand for the features that keep growing it, M4/3 bodies as a whole aren't getting any bigger. The GX8 is the only other big model size jump I can think of, and they followed it by the surprise launch of the GX80.

The G7 & G80 were just about the same size as the preceding G5/6. The current GX800 is larger than the GM line but those were smaller than basically any other ILC, and this GX is more of a GF (and smaller than pretty much all GF bodies at that).

Olympus seemingly abandoned half It's PEN lineup but current OM-Ds aren't any larger than the first gen OM-Ds either, the E-M5/10 II are the same as the original E-M5 oh so many years ago and the E-M1 have always been roughly the same thing but with a deeper grip.

One could also argue Panasonic has done more to provide some ultra portable options within the system than Oly has, they came out with the GM and current GX bodies while Oly pulled back from the PEN. They also make some of the best small glass within the system (12-35, 14-140, 35-100 - both of them, 12-32 pancake, 20/1.7 pancake, upcoming PL8-16)...

Whereas Oly has been focusing almost exclusively on larger Pro lenses the last few years, and the only really small lens they make for which I'd say there isn't a Panasonic equivalent (or better) is the 9-18 (maybe the 12/2 as well).

Sorry but people griping that the system has "lost it's way" every time a larger body or lens is released just gets old, the fact is most of us actually using the system totally appreciate the fact that it scales so well in either direction.

BBC been using GH series cameras for their flagship and award winning nature documentaries for quite a few years, so the sad old cliche "my sensor is bigger and therefor better" doesn't win when the smaller sensor is used "smarter".Sorry unless you have a 35mm "FF" sensor, in which case it is smaller but better than larger medium format sensors. "FF" physics is amazing.

May because there are a lot of people that look at all the specs and how they translate into reality, than look what is out there on the market that can compare and have to conclude that at that price and size there is nothing. Other people cannot look past sensorsize as much as some people cannot look beyond the colour of someones skin it seems. Hardwired prejudice.

@ProfHankDA6500 is only 300 EUR cheaper (450 EUR if it's on sale), does not do 10-bit 4:2:2 internal, has horrible rolling shutter, cannot record over 30 minutes, overheats, has terrible battery life, cannot be used in bright daylight without an external monitor and the stabilisation is worse than any of the MFT options.

It does have excellent video AF, which is really the only good thing it has going on for it.

In short, A6500 is a very expensive camera for amateur use. You have to have a lot of dedication and do non-critical work to solely rely on such an unreliable camera.

I use both a Pentax K1 (supposed to be small by FF standards) and a EM1.2. Anyone who thinks that the m4/3 is big and heavy in comparison obviously has never lugged around a FF w/ a 70-200 lens. My EM1.2 is so much lighter with the 80-300(eqiv) lens that there is no comparison. If you shoot FF and like it that is great...I do. But grow the Fudge Up and quit judging those who prefer the m4/3 cameras. I think BOTH formats are superb if you know what you are doing. If you are only capable of shooting FF maybe you should take a photography class...just sayin.

Astrotripper: all your complaints are on video, and I think they're a bit overstated; heck, the GH5 isn't even coming with log video support by default (and it has obviously poorer DR). In my opinion, the A6500 beats every micro4/3 body for stills by a much larger margin than it loses by on video. I also think $1400 is a lot less than $2000... and if it isn't, then an A7SII, A7RII, or A99II isn't unreasonable either (the GH5 is 42% more than A6500, and A7RII is 45% more than GH5).

In sum, the GH5 is an impressive enough camera, but $2K is too much for what is ultimately a big, video-centric, body wrapped around a small sensor with an aspect ratio that for video discards at least another 25% of the sensor due to choice of the 4/3 sensor aspect ratio. Your opinion may, and is welcome to, vary. ;-)

Interesting thread here. I would say many video pros use GH4/5 as this camera is the minimum that one can use with cinema productions -- with the dci 4k. Also for live streaming/switching the GH4's SDI output, with the yag expansion unit, and the GH5's full size hdmi work well and offer fine results for clients. I would not recommend the GH5 for stills only persons.

The a6300/5 are amazing little cameras in several regards and remind me of a souped up yet temperamental VW -- awesome, fast and great performance when working properly but prone to potholes and needy in terms of maintenance.

Ideally, one would have a combination of the sonys and panys to leverage their relative strengths: sony's low light, larger sensor and slog; pany's record time, acceptable rolling shutter and battery life, for example.

M4/3 in terms of sensor size for video is uniquely optimized in my opinion and when judged against even recent camcorders is actually quite huge (remember the 1/2 inch Sony EX1/3s).

I don't think 128 was complaining.....I think he was sayin he thought the price reflected the tech that you purchase with this camera. I used Beta back in the day with a Hughes Owens Thermal Camera attached, that was a 'hot' package back in 89.

s1rThanks.NAB is in a couple of weeks.And I'm still hoping DJI will put their 5.2 RAW camera on a non drone.And I'm waiting for the dust to settle on the GH5 with respect to the updates and some time in the wild.I hope it lives up to its expectations.But in the end it's all about knowing the pluses and minuses and making a decision.

I believe it is wiser to try to learn from other people's perspectives and experiences. Film making and even digital is not entirely new. These kids wake up and see a shiny little HDSLR under the tree missing all the problems that their predecessors solved with their ingenuity and often one tenth of the bandwidth. 100 GB of garbage is still garbage.

I wish the GH5 cost less ($1500 seems more reasonable), and was smaller. With that said, I am probably going to buy one. I have a GH3 and it has been my favorite camera ever. I seriously considered switching to either Fuji or Sony, but after considerable research and trying out the various models, I decided to stick with m4/3. I have 3 m4/3 cameras, and a bunch of good lenses, so switching systems just doesn't make sense monetarily. Anyways, I agree that the price is high, but for a hybrid stills/video shooter such as myself who is already invested in m4/3 it seems like the best option currently available.

Why do they put that side-opening display instead of much more convenient tilting one??? Just look at the 2-axis tilting displays of Fuji X-T2 or Fuji GFX 50s. There is no problem with opening the display when something is connected in to the left side.

Who said that the fully articulated display is the best for video shooting? It's the worst choice possible!!!

@Jorginho, never mind, but for what reason do you love them? There are tilting mechanisms that offer MORE positions for LESS movements compared to fully articulating ones.To me, the main disadvantage of the FAS is that you have to look at left while the object you are shooting is in front of you (when display is turned upwards/downwards). With TS there is no such problem - the display and the lens share the same axis and you don't have to change the direction of your view.

Am I the only person here who actively DISLIKES the current trend to produce hybrid stills/video cameras? Most of the photographers I know don't want video, which just makes stills cameras more complex and more expensive. I'm sure the Pansonic is a great compromise (biased towards video), but I'd much rather see cameras designed EITHER for stills OR for video. "Jack of all trades, master of none"

Rule of demand and supply.The user is the "jack or master"The options for photo or video are separate.Even Hasselblad is further implementing video its medium formats, not to mention others who are further ahead in the race.As for Panasonic, the brand comes from initially a video platform camera wise, so I do not feel it's biassed. But funny enough, how brands from a photo camera platform implemented advance video capabilities before Pana or Sony did.

If you want to live the passion like I do; lately I got a few reels of Ilford FP4. Enjoyed and treasure these moments. From lightroom back to darkroom was the other time travel.

TN Args - No need to be so defensive - my comment wasn't intended to be a criticism of Panasonic (or anyone else). Almost all stills cameras these days incorporate video recording, and are hence hybrids.

It just strikes me, from speaking to numerous photographers and videographer friends, that stills photographers rarely make videos, and video photographers rarely make still photos.

Personally if I was interested in video, I'd buy a camera specifically designed for video, rather than something that by definition is a compromise.

Part of the GH5 price premium is for video, sure, but I now see you want to see the video stripped out of cameras like the GX8 for a price saving. I don't buy the idea that it makes them complex to the stills photographer -- one completely separate button on the outside with a big red dot and a completely separate menu on the inside, how is that difficult to avoid if you don't want to use video? It isn't.

As for price savings, you would knock about $1 off the build price of a GX8 because you still need the videocentric sensor, and high-speed video data transfer, to support an EVF-type stills camera with high data rates for screen refreshes, and also modern still photography features like 4K Photo or 6K Photo and Pro Capture for Oly, etc.

A high performance still photo mirrorless camera relies on advanced video technology to work at all, so you won't save any money to just remove one button and one menu, plus lose the economies of scale on small production runs. It will cost MORE.

GH series was hybrid from the start, so it will remain hybrid, but I do agree with you on the fact that there are people who do not require their camera to be a hybrid (I'm one of them). I don't understand how anyone can shoot video comfortably with a camera shaped ideally for stills. There should be cameras dedicated to stills, and those dedicated to videos.

Having video doesn't seem to make the camera more complex it just gives options for those who want high quality, cinema capable recordings, who otherwise would have to carry and buy a lot more equipment.

The GH series is basically carved it niche market as a hybrid camera. Why begrudge it when this is the segment where this is successful. There are other great still cameras have less emphasis on video.

As a travel photographer I find basic but clear 1080p video of my GX85 very handy on trips. I'm certainly not complaining.

There clearly is need for the video features since companies keep adding those. If you don't use video, you just are not in the target segment of GH-5. I don't shot video either, but there are plenty of people who do.

If you shoot multiple frames per second with your still camera, video is converging to this world. Today video frames are jpeg only, but you can get 30 per second continously at 18mp size in GH5. They will be Raw in near future. Are you willing to not learn about video's evolution now? You will be left behind.

Also, per your post, if "most of the photographers you know don't want video," how come you think that you might be "the only person here who actively DISLIKES the current trend to produce hybrid stills/video cameras"? Is it because all of your friends photographers are not "here" or because they don't dislike the "trend" despite not wanting video?

Photodiod - To clarify, you are absolutely right that most of the people I spoke to are in my own age group i.e. over 50. In answer top your question, yes, it's because most of my photographic friends are not "here" i.e. they don't participate in forums. Most (not all) have stated that, like me, they have no interest in video and would prefer to keep the 2 crafts in separate machines.

Anyway, many thanks to you and all the other respondents for your feedback, which is what I asked for. It seems that the over 50's are indeed in the minority on this subject. Photography and video are entirely different crafts, but as has been pointed out, multi-frame shooting has brought them together as far as equipment is concerned.

I was thinking just like you at some point but after a few years, shooting videos and stills with the same camera is just amazing. Finding a camera that does both at very good level is amazingly hard too. They either suck at one or another. Hopefully GH5 will be it. I know it is amazing with video, but I am not so sure if it will satisfy my needs in photography. I've been spoiled with the best of Pentax. If it will get really close, I will be happy enough.

This is very fair point and Canon is 'back peddling' with the 5DS and 5Div "we can't totally ignore video but we are moving back towards a stills orientated camera, if you would like a video camera, then please consider a C100."

The DSLR form factor offers a lot of advantages over "traditional" video cameras: interchangeable lenses, good ergonomics and a more incognito look. One of the biggest advantages, at least, a few years ago, was the incredible HD performance at a price point much cheaper than previously available -- think 2009. The market is much more crowded these days. Of course, there are drawbacks to DSLRs which have been much expounded upon in other forums.

As far as being over 50, well I am not quite there and can wait my turn. :) However, I do know a few "old school" photographers who are enjoying getting into videography and come from an impressive analogue photography background (bringing decades of shooting experience). And have been a pleasure to learn from.

Hybrid cameras are a compromise. They are a bit like saloon cars. OK at most things but not great at anything. If you want a sports car or a tractor, you don't compromise and try to plough your field with a Lamborghini, or race in a Massey Ferguson!

Or do you????

The best tool for the job is a specialised tool, not a hybrid compromise.The latter may be ADEQUATE, but not the best for the job.

More about gear in this article

Ahh, April: the beginning of Spring. The sun starts to come out after a long winter, flowers are blooming and bears come out of hibernation. April was a pretty busy month in the camera industry, including some real blockbuster announcements.

As 2017 draws to a close, we're looking back at major product launches and events of the last 12 months. Today, we're beginning at the beginning - with January. Take a look at some of that month's highlights.

It's time to vote for your favorite cameras and lenses in our year-end Readers' Choice Awards! For this batch, we've rounded up the seven of the best high-end interchangeable lens cameras for enthusiasts and pros. Vote for your favorite in our poll.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

Latest buying guides

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

At this year's CP+ show in Yokohama, we sat down with senior executives from several major manufacturers, including Canon. Topics of conversation included Canon's ambitions for high-end mirrorless cameras, and the importance of responding to the demands of the smartphone generation.

We were recently able to follow local frame builder Max Kullaway as he created one of his AirLandSea bikes. Here are our picks of the photos we got, as the project progressed from bare tubes all the way to rideable bicycle.

On paper, the Sony a7 III is a tempting option for photographers who've been considering a switch to full-frame mirrorless. But how does its image quality stack up? We compare it to the Mark II and a few of its other peers.

Google Lens uses artificial intelligence and 'computer vision' to identify and provide information about businesses, landmarks and other objects using your phone's camera. And now it's available for iPhone users, too.

In the job posting, the Times' describes this role as "one of the most important and high-profile jobs in visual journalism." If you're looking for a high profile job in photojournalism, you could do a lot worse than being Photo Director at The Gray Lady.

According to a recent report out of South Korea, Samsung is increasing production of its ISOCELL image sensors in a bid towards market leadership for image sensors. To reach this goal, Samsung will have to dethrone current market leader Sony... no small task.

In this video, large format photographer Ben Horne shows off the incredible resolving power of 8x10 slide film by pixel peeping a massive 709.6-megapixel drum scan of one of his landscape shots. And you thought 100MP medium format was big...

Photographer Wendy Teal tells the heart-breaking story of a wedding she shot at a hospital on just 24-hours notice. The mother of the bride had been given one week to live, and Wendy responded to the couple's desperate social media plea for someone to capture their special day.

Syrp has announced the Magic Carpet Pro: a slider that offers filmmakers an 'infinitely extendable' range thanks to built-in track levers that let you connect lengths of track without the use of tools.

At CP+ we sat down with executives from several major manufacturers. Among them was Kenji Tanaka, of Sony, who talked to us about the a7 III as well as its plans to attract more pro shooters – without ignoring APS-C and entry-level customers.

How do you shoot macro photography on an 18x24cm large format wet plate camera? You 'connect' two large format cameras together! That's how wet plate photographer Markus Hofstaetter did it, and you can read about the whole process in this article.

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Motorsports photojournalist Jamey Price recently flew to Canada with Lamborghini for the car company's Winter Accademia 2018, where clients get to drive the latest Lamborghini supercars on snow and ice. Yes... it is exactly as awesome as it sounds.

For the Pixel 2 smartphone's Motion Photos feature, Google built on its existing Motion Stills technology by adding advanced stabilization that combines software and hardware capabilities to optimize trimming and stabilization.

"After his camera was stolen from his room in the orphanage, he switched to an iPhone for his photography, reasoning that the image quality of a big, heavy camera was less important than the freedom of a cell phone. 'Quality? Screw it, I’d sketch things with a pencil if I could draw,' he wrote in a blog post."

Chinese manufacturer Vivo has announced some AI-powered Super HDR tech to compete with Google's HDR+ system. Both systems combine multiple images to create a final shot with more dynamic range and less noise, but Super HDR claims to do so more intelligently.

The 'semantic image segmentation model' categorizes every pixel in an image and assigns it a label, such as “road”, “sky”, “person” or “dog.” And now, Google has released its latest version as open source, making it available to any developers whose apps could benefit from the tech.